BACK HOME! TODAY'S RADIO SHOW WILL BE LIVE!
THOUGHT FOR THE DAY!
YOUR RANDOM DHS MONITORED PHRASE OF THE DAY
The Oklahoma City Bombing - Were there additional explosive charges and additional bombers?By Michael Rivero
A brief overview of the official story of the Oklahoma City bombing:
There are many problems with the official story of the bombing. Let's start with McVeigh's whereabouts on April 17.
|McVeigh had been filmed by a security camera at a nearby McDonald's 24 minutes before the
time stamped on the truck rental agreement, wearing clothes that did not match either of the men seen at
There is no plausible explanation of how he traveled the mile and a quarter from McDonald's to the rental agency, carless and alone as he claims, without getting soaked in the rain.
|The three people interviewed agreed John Does 1 and 2 were dry. According to Stephen Jones, who has seen
the interview transcripts, it took 44 days for the FBI to convince the car rental agency owner that John Doe 1
was Timothy McVeigh. And in the end they did not dare put him on the witness stand, for fear of what might
happen under cross-examination.|
There is also an unanswered question with regard to the truck, namely what was the Army doing with a Ryder Truck just before the Murrah blast?
The biggest problem with the official story of the bombing are early news reports of the incident:
What does it all mean?
From the above evidence, it is clear that an event which generated a high frequency surface wave which preceded the main truck bomb blast by 4.2 seconds. This event was recorded at two different locations at distances of 100 yards and 1/3 of a mile. Because the 4.2 second interval remains constant at both distances, theories of mechanism producing echoes are eliminated. Because the spectrogram of the lawyer's tape shows BOTH surface and airborne waves separated by 4.2 seconds from BOTH surface and airborne waves of the truck bomb, arguments of a surface/air phenomenon are invalid. Two events at the Murrah building 4.2 seconds apart produced two sets of surface/air pairs 4.2 seconds apart at the lawyer's office.
The Seismographic Records from Norman Oklahoma
These images are scans of the seismographic output from the Norman Oklahoma Z-axis recorder for April 19th and May 23rd; the bombing and the demolition respectively. This is the raw data which led Ray Brown and Charles Mankin to decide that there may have been a second explosion. It turns out that the 10 second delay is caused by differing propagation times through the layers of shale and sandstone that lie under Oklahoma City.
April 19th: The Bombing of the Murrah Building
The FAX cover logo from the Oklahoma Geological Survey
Scan of the seismographic record. Note the circle around the Murrah events.
Circled Detail of the Murrah events.
May 23rd: The Sequenced Demolition of the Murrah Building
The additional spikes on this record are caused by wind flexing the radio antenna which is used to transmit the data to the Oklahoma Geological Survey.
Seismographic record of the Murrah Building Demolition
Detail of the Murrah Demolition.
Note that the 8 second long sequenced demolition of the remainder of the Murrah Building yielded a trace the same length as the original bombing. The first trace, if indeed a single explosion, should be shorter. But it isn't, suggesting that BOTH events consisted of multiple sequenced detonations over several seconds' duration.
The Murrah Building Cover-up (literally)
|The minister who married my wife and I was in OK City right after the Murrah Building bomb(s) exploded, and he volunteered to help dig for survivors. He told of three very odd occurrences. In the first, he was required to show his ID six times before being allowed to help look for survivors. In the second, he confirmed the stories told by others that men in suits and ties were literally stepping over the wounded in their haste to gather up files and certain other items in the debris.|
Lastly, and the oddest story of all, he told of more men in suits and ties taping plastic sheeting over portions of the building wreckage! The plastic sheeting used was very thin, could not possibly provide any mechanical support for the covered items, and seemed to serve no other purpose than to conceal the wrapped object from view. This story has also been confirmed by other witnesses.
Finally, a photo surfaced which confirms this story (see right).
|Note at the very right edge of the photo a large piece of the building covered in shiny black plastic, partly obscured by the flat piece of floor leaning against it. Note the ladder to get a sense of the size of the covered object.|